Check-out dispute over 'fair wear and tear' on a five-year-old kitchen
You conduct a check-out on a flat let for five years to the same tenant. The check-in report (five years old) describes the kitchen as 'new condition' with laminate worktops, a vinyl floor and painted walls. At check-out you observe: two burn marks on the worktop near the hob, a lifted seam in the vinyl near the sink, scuffing to the lower walls behind the bin, and general fading of the paint. The tenant argues all of it is fair wear and tear. The deposit is £1,200. The landlord wants to claim for a full worktop replacement, a full floor replacement and repainting throughout. The tenancy agreement is silent on the age or expected lifespan of fittings.
1. Distinguish, on the evidence, between fair wear and tear and damage/neglect, item by item.
Read the worked answer
Apply the test of reasonable use over five years. Burn marks: not a consequence of normal use - these are damage/neglect (carelessness with hot items), though the remedy is proportionate repair, not necessarily full replacement. Lifted vinyl seam near the sink: likely a combination of normal wear and possible water ingress; note it factually and flag causation as uncertain rather than asserting damage. Scuffing behind the bin: consistent with ordinary use in a confined space over five years - leans to fair wear and tear, though severity matters. Paint fading: fair wear and tear; decoration is expected to degrade and repainting is generally not recoverable where it reflects normal life. Record each with photographs and a neutral description, and state where causation is unclear.
2. The landlord demands full replacement costs. How should the claim be apportioned, and what would you advise?
Read the worked answer
Advise betterment and apportionment. A five-year-old worktop and floor have already delivered part of their useful life; the tenant should not fund new-for-old. Estimate remaining lifespan against expected lifespan and apportion the landlord's loss accordingly. For example, if a laminate worktop has an expected life of ~10 years and is 5 years old, roughly half the replacement cost is attributable to the tenant's damage - and only the damaged area, not the whole run, if a like-for-like repair is feasible. The burn marks might be repairable (worktop repair/edging) at lower cost. Paint fading is not recoverable. Present a reasoned schedule with evidence, not a demand, and note that an adjudicator would expect itemised, proportionate figures.
3. What would you put in the check-out report to make an adjudicator's decision easier?
Read the worked answer
A clear item-by-item comparison against the check-in baseline, with dated photographs of each issue and of the surrounding undamaged areas for context. State the age of fittings (five years) and the check-in description ('new condition'). Describe each defect neutrally with size/location, and record the tenant's comments. Where causation is uncertain (vinyl seam), say so. Avoid stating liability or amounts in the report; keep the report factual and put any apportionment reasoning in a separate schedule for the landlord. Consistency of method with the check-in is the strongest protection if the deposit is disputed.